I had to reinstall my games recently on a notebook. With updates to the core system, the games, the software downloaded plus the ordinary usage (Netflix, Youtube and other streaming) I blew past the 300Gb threshold in less than a week.
If lying put their execs in jail they'd be singing a different tune.
The thing is, going forward that is pretty much already taken care of. The digital nature of publishing (even print publishing) is such that retaining an archive is merely a question of backup space and nothing more.
Google Books begs to differ. The Internet Archive too. Ask them how copyright litigations on those fields have been lately. Google scored an awesome victory and was allowed to scan books at will. Good thing everybody has deep pockets to enter a battle like this even if victory is guaranteed in the end.
From everything I can tell, pretty much every modern newspaper auto archives their stuff, with many of them having archives back nearly 20 years already.
Yeah! Awesome! The newspapers that went belly up and disappeared still maintain backups, right? Either you are dumb/illiterate and couldn't understand the article or you are being dishonest (I like to believe you are dumb, things get funnier that way).
So your solution is to deny a copyright holder their rights, because you think that maybe they may not be able or willing to do this, and that their work somehow has so little value that even in a complete closure of a newspaper that their archive would just be flushed.
Aaaand... You took something out of your ass yet again. Nobody said that. What's being discussed is that most of the content that has NO VALUE to the author already for decades cannot be included in archival efforts because copyright.
See, the problem here is that you are looking at a 50 or 70 year old problem, and using it to try to make rules for current times. It's just out of touch.
it's going to be 100 years in 2022. And it's gonna last at least 75 years more for a whole effin' lot of content. Copyright is the type of thing that MUST be conducted thinking of Historical value, archival and future availability lest we risk creating dark ages of knowledge.
As for "I don't care so nobody does", sorry but you are full of shit. I do care, and I know others do care for different reasons. How you draw a conclusion like that just shows how hard you are trying to be a prick about stuff, rather than enter into a discussion.
Except that's exactly your attitude. There are plenty of articles where REAL problems are discussed and you take exactly that stance. And it's funny you talk about discussion when you yourself seem to be 'immune' to anything that you slightly disagree. You pretend to give some credit to other ideas but in the end you just twist that 'credit' into "MOAR COPYRIGHTS! THINK OF THE ARTISTS!".
Unfortunately time will remember the copyright freaks in the future when the damage people are suffering is brought into light objectively. And it will not be pretty.
And this is the regime some people think is worth expanding?!?
Collateral damage. *incoherent rambling* /troll
That put out of the way, it's like installing a factory, poisoning a good portion of the population (not that much though!) and saying it's ok because collateral damage. This is insanity. But it isn't costing lives objectively (small artists beg to differ) so it's alright.
Hopefully if it passes the non-UK companies will halt operations immediately in the UK. That would be a beautiful start for the demise of this idiocy if it actually passes. The rest would be major damage to the finances as a whole once ill-intended ones inevitably find the doors and proceed to abuse them.
PArt of me would love to see this come into law and see the UK citizens AND the government (indirectly via money loss) being utterly screwed by it. Nothing against the British themselves but it would be a powerful example on how to shoot your own feet.
I sounded pretty much totalitarian in some parts in the comment I'm replying to but I actually have a honest doubt. How do you prevent parents from going the blatant stupid route without being a totalitarian asshole? I don't know.
The way we are living is the real problem, not really the amount of people. And the birth rates tend to go down if you give proper education to the people. Notice that higher birth rates tend to be where less education is, even if you consider zones within the same city.
I'm very awry of talking about climate change because people seem to become blind by carbon dioxide and atmospheric pollutants and in my view they are hardly the worst problem once you consider Earth has been much hotter in the past and there are indications of another ice age coming anytime in the next few thousand years. We should be focusing in less consumption, more means for people to use sustainable transportation and energy sources. This includes stopping being dumbasses about nuclear power and giving it more resources to be developed and the radiation/nuclear waste issue be dealt with or eliminated altogether.
The day we start using our heads instead of our anuses to think and agree with some measures based in pure logic and not in "what I'll gain from it" then we'll see improvements. Otherwise we'll see extinction. I'm betting on the second option now, honestly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What’s Our Most Valuable Resource?
Indeed, there are such conspiracy nuts that will accuse the Government of intrusion at the slightest hint of help. However as with any benefit one can opt out of it. Take unemployment insurance (the salary the Government pays for a while when you lose your job). You have to apply for it. Same should happen if the Government decides to give new parents a helping hand. If they don't want they can go without it. What I see as interference is the Government intruding inside the relations between parents and children. A blunt example would be the Govt mandating me to raise my kids in the Catholic religion if I want them to go Islam or even less religiously by adopting Buddhism or atheism. But offering help seems to be ok. The vaccinations are a mixed bag because if you deprive the kid from getting them you'll put him/her at risk and children have no way to express their acceptance or not of said vaccines. Being mandatory is not the best path I recognize that much but how do you protect thye kids from parental stupidity?
You got me wrong, for me "Nanny State" refers to the Govt intruding in how the parents choose to rise their kids. In that sense I totally disagree.
However we agree in all the rest. In most develpoed places having kids has become a heavy burden which is why birth rates declined. Governments are now trying to revert the trend. Which is a good thing. Parents should get more support from the Government.
It's not about increasing population but rather maintaining it. If memory serves you need around 2.1 children per women to reach equilibrium. The actual increase with that optimal number is zero and the population would more or less maintain its age structure. Sure if people live longer it would change over time but with better health people would be able to work longer. That's the idea for these countries.
I will disagree with your last sentence (“Nanny state”, did you say? Yes, it will have to come to that.). We don't need the Government meddling where it doesn't belong.
As for the rest, it's pretty clear today in most places that having a kid is a burdensome task with no support whatsoever. We will see many countries struggle with diving birth rates exactly because it isn't worth having kids. See the major cities around the world for evidence that the environment we as a society are giving wannabe moms is simply terrible. Want a kid? Throw your career through the window and be screwed by the system in various manners! Awesome incentive.